To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

October 17, 1 9 9 5 le tte r to tlie eJitor- Pa£e 10
The Conservative Manifesto: a student in support
of the Contract with America and the Grand Old Party
I read, with in te re s t, the commentary by
Bethany Leddy (Contract on America: Republicans
practice social debauchery), and I was moved to re­spond.
Actually, I was moved to ask her this ques­tion:
Where does she get her information?
My first remark would concern her last asser­tion
th a t her “gripe with the Republican party lies
not only in their past performance of catering to
the desires of big business, and the outline of their
“Contract with America” but with their proclama­tion
of furthering their ideals of “Family Values.”
First, about this big business thing, I would go
one step further. They are for business. Whether it
would be big or small business. We have seen the
regulation, fees, permits, and other government in­trusion
into business just about ensure that very
few small guys can make it. For instance, in one
major U.S. city (run by, I would note, Democrats
for decades) they have a way of keeping little guys
out of business. One might think, to earn an hon­est
living in a big city, you could buy a decent
used car and hire out as a taxi-cab. Some have
tried. Until they realize that this great city re­quires
a one-time payment of 100,000 dollars for
a permit. Well, that just about rules out all but
the big guy. This is the sort of silly regulation
tha t Republicans are against. Also, you would
note th a t a key House Republican recently of­fered
a bill that would have eliminate billions of
the tax breaks corporations get. I might also note
here th a t Republicans have historically, in the
last 50 years, gotten about one tenth of the cam­paign
contributions from corporate contributors
than their Democratic counterparts. Maybe they
just felt they only had to buy the Democrats.
Next, how about this Contract. Even if you do
not agree with it, it is almost unknown to see any
politician put promises in writing, much less a group
of them. You can’t hide from them later when they
are written.
Well, let’s see...family values...the last time I
checked, th a t was something everyone agreed
needed to be addressed. Well, almost everyone. The
family is the most basic unit in our society. Since
our welfare state has broken down, we have seen
people going down the tubes. Study after study
proves tha t good family backgrounds make people
more likely to be emotionally, financially, and spiri­tually
happier for life.
Welfare has, as I mentioned, caused the people
who need the family unit the most; th a t is, poor
people; to lose th a t one thing which they had left.
Women have been left holding the bag by a system
that rewards fathers leaving the home and rewards
non-productivity. Welfare should reward those who
are doing the best they can to get out of their situ­ation
and it should subsidize those who physically
or mentally cannot support themselves. That is it.
So, capable people should be encouraged to be mar­ried
to the parent of their child and go to school, all
while getting benefits to help. It should provide child
care and it should not stop if the lady chooses to
marry her children’s father. I have often said that
it should work much like it would work if it were
being distributed by a parent. Your parent wouldn’t
come out and say, “Okay, just sit around and I’ll
pay your bills.” No, they would say, “I will do what­ever
I can for you, but please do your best to get
out on your own.” And then would proceed to con
tinue to help through your transitional period un­til
you made it on your own.
As far as any particular welfare proposals, I
would point this out: They were proposals, and only
that. In the end, the bill was overwhelmingly ap­proved
by all involved. The radical proposals were
an extension of what Ms. Leddy advocated: They
were tossing around reform ideas...and they threw
out the bad ones. That, to me, is how it should work.
And I applaud both sides of the aisle for coming to
something of an agreement.
Also, by the way, none of this very important
without economic boom times tha t would result in
massive hiring. Taxing capital gains causes people
to invest much less. This is one of the biggest rea­sons
that our economy has slowed down. We have
a territory, the Northern Marianas, which should
be a model for us. They have just about no taxes,
with the exception of income taxes, which are about
one tenth of ours. And, they have almost no unem­ployment,
or any of its related social problems. Yet,
the Clinton administration wants to shut them
down. Clinton says they must raise taxes, or they
will lose the pittance they get from the federal gov­ernment.
The governor of Norther Marianas says,
“OK., take your money back.” They don’t need it.
Please look into that before you attack tax cuts
and government program growth cuts.
Study after study
proves that good family
background make people
more likely to be
emotionally financially,
and spiritually happier for life
On a-somew-hat related ppmt, I have one request
of Ms. Leddy: Prove that the Republicans, as a
whole, have proposed cutting even a single penny
from Medicare, Medicaid, or A.F.D.C. You cannot
do that at all. I have no idea where one might get
the idea that they are cutting the above programs,
but it is false. Republicans simply believe that it
is smart to keep the budget growth within the pa­rameters
of inflation and economic growth. The
so-called “cuts” you speak of are simply them say­ing
“We will no longer allow this program to grow
at 10% every year when income in this country
only grows by 5%” (for example). That is what the
liberal media refers to as a ‘cut.’ Like I said, prove
otherwise. And, by the way, I agree that we need
defense cutbacks. We won the cold war. We have
so much more than any other country. (We have
sixteen carriers..the closest nation, Russia, has a
small fraction of that.) But, some of the old-time
Republicans still can’t believe it is over. Luckily,
there are freshmen who know this and are trying
to perform cuts. Hopefully they will win out. On
the other hand, defense spending has gone from
about 11% of our GDP in 1955 to about 4% now,
while other domestic spending has gone from 5.5%
to 14.5% (source: 1995 fiscal year budget of the
U.S.)
Bosnia? Bloated Pork Barrel Bill? Peace Confer­ence?
What is this nonsense? The Clintonites had
no business sending our young men and women
somewhere in which, yet again, they were placed
in the line of fire to protect people who did not
want it. All the while, they are hobbled so they
cannot even defend themselves. Remember the
“peace-keepers” being pushed back and back and
back? They really did some good, didn’t they? In
the end, level-headed diplomacy seems to be work­ing
since it looks as of the time of this writing tha t
temporary peace may occur. But, in the mean time,
we could have simply allowed the Muslims to de­fend
themselves. They had an embargo which Con­gress
voted to repeal.
About Medicare. In case you didn’t notice, it was
Democrats who, long ago, recognized th a t some­thing
needed fixing in the Medicare system if it was
to not engulf the entire federal budget. Only they
did not have the political courage to do it. If we
leave it like it is now, no senior will benefit because
the program will have to stop long before it reaches
its projection of gobbling up the entire federal bud­get.
And that is when real cuts would happen. Also,
the Republican proposals afford choice and even
savings, in the form of M.S. A.’s which allow seniors
to collect a portion of their un-used benefits at the
end of each year.
I also propose, like Ms. Leddy, th a t “tax and cut”
is not the answer. I propose the same as the Re­publicans
propose: cut taxes and cut government.
We currently spend twice each year, on our “war on
poverty,” w hat it would cost to pull everyone out of
poverty here. We could simply write them a check.
Or, we could send it to the churches who actually
get people off of the need for welfare. Look for
a proposal th a t would allow a tax credit (not
deduction...CREDIT) for donations to charities
th a t work against poverty. They work better
than the federal government, dollar per dollar
because they address the real problems and be­cause
many of their workers are volunteers.
This is what we need, not more heartless gov­ernment
programs meant to ensure th a t cer­tain
members of our society remain “enslaved”
to the welfare state.
I fully agree with Ms. Leddy’s last h alf of her
— last paragraph: Congressional perks are out­rageous
and it should never have become a ca­reer
to be on Capitol Hill. I believe th a t term limits
and campaign contribution reform will help a lot
towards making sure th a t our Congress represents
us. (Also, by the way, the Republicans have said
they are willing to take the first cut, the only real
cut, but Clinton decided to blast them for “taking
care of their business first.” I think, when “cuts”
are on the table, they had better take care of them­selves
first.)
Andrew Barber
T he L a 5t
I appreciate the time you took to respond to my
Commentary, Mr. Barber, however, I do not believe
tha t all of your points are accurate, 1. My infor­mation
on the cuts to Medicare, A.F.D.C., and Med­icaid
programs came from four sources: the first
was a detailed outline of the Contract with America
in Newsweek which came out last semester; the
second was an article outlining the Contract with
America in last week’s Baltimore Sun; the third
was a C-Span speech during which Newtie and
Dole spoke of their Welfare prposals which aired
last August; the fourth was a recent U.S. News and
World Report showing a detailed pie chart of the
proposed cuts. U.S. News also provided me with
my corporate tax write-off information. The ar­ticle
is on the cover and I do believe it is accurate.
inaccuracy I would like to sight is the
section during which you claimed I advocated the
pseudo-reforms that Congress has passed concern­ing
welfare. Fine they may be reforming but their
reforms move in the wrong direction which creates
the dependancy on the state with you abhore.
That's nice tha t you agree with me on some
points but, you have failed to see the ramifications
on the justice in law by the pushing of personal
morals in legislation as select Republicans have
been doing with "family values," I see through
reading your letter that you support these values
lyourself, That’s great but, just like religion, they
Tdon't belong in politics. B e t h a n y L e d d y

October 17, 1 9 9 5 le tte r to tlie eJitor- Pa£e 10
The Conservative Manifesto: a student in support
of the Contract with America and the Grand Old Party
I read, with in te re s t, the commentary by
Bethany Leddy (Contract on America: Republicans
practice social debauchery), and I was moved to re­spond.
Actually, I was moved to ask her this ques­tion:
Where does she get her information?
My first remark would concern her last asser­tion
th a t her “gripe with the Republican party lies
not only in their past performance of catering to
the desires of big business, and the outline of their
“Contract with America” but with their proclama­tion
of furthering their ideals of “Family Values.”
First, about this big business thing, I would go
one step further. They are for business. Whether it
would be big or small business. We have seen the
regulation, fees, permits, and other government in­trusion
into business just about ensure that very
few small guys can make it. For instance, in one
major U.S. city (run by, I would note, Democrats
for decades) they have a way of keeping little guys
out of business. One might think, to earn an hon­est
living in a big city, you could buy a decent
used car and hire out as a taxi-cab. Some have
tried. Until they realize that this great city re­quires
a one-time payment of 100,000 dollars for
a permit. Well, that just about rules out all but
the big guy. This is the sort of silly regulation
tha t Republicans are against. Also, you would
note th a t a key House Republican recently of­fered
a bill that would have eliminate billions of
the tax breaks corporations get. I might also note
here th a t Republicans have historically, in the
last 50 years, gotten about one tenth of the cam­paign
contributions from corporate contributors
than their Democratic counterparts. Maybe they
just felt they only had to buy the Democrats.
Next, how about this Contract. Even if you do
not agree with it, it is almost unknown to see any
politician put promises in writing, much less a group
of them. You can’t hide from them later when they
are written.
Well, let’s see...family values...the last time I
checked, th a t was something everyone agreed
needed to be addressed. Well, almost everyone. The
family is the most basic unit in our society. Since
our welfare state has broken down, we have seen
people going down the tubes. Study after study
proves tha t good family backgrounds make people
more likely to be emotionally, financially, and spiri­tually
happier for life.
Welfare has, as I mentioned, caused the people
who need the family unit the most; th a t is, poor
people; to lose th a t one thing which they had left.
Women have been left holding the bag by a system
that rewards fathers leaving the home and rewards
non-productivity. Welfare should reward those who
are doing the best they can to get out of their situ­ation
and it should subsidize those who physically
or mentally cannot support themselves. That is it.
So, capable people should be encouraged to be mar­ried
to the parent of their child and go to school, all
while getting benefits to help. It should provide child
care and it should not stop if the lady chooses to
marry her children’s father. I have often said that
it should work much like it would work if it were
being distributed by a parent. Your parent wouldn’t
come out and say, “Okay, just sit around and I’ll
pay your bills.” No, they would say, “I will do what­ever
I can for you, but please do your best to get
out on your own.” And then would proceed to con
tinue to help through your transitional period un­til
you made it on your own.
As far as any particular welfare proposals, I
would point this out: They were proposals, and only
that. In the end, the bill was overwhelmingly ap­proved
by all involved. The radical proposals were
an extension of what Ms. Leddy advocated: They
were tossing around reform ideas...and they threw
out the bad ones. That, to me, is how it should work.
And I applaud both sides of the aisle for coming to
something of an agreement.
Also, by the way, none of this very important
without economic boom times tha t would result in
massive hiring. Taxing capital gains causes people
to invest much less. This is one of the biggest rea­sons
that our economy has slowed down. We have
a territory, the Northern Marianas, which should
be a model for us. They have just about no taxes,
with the exception of income taxes, which are about
one tenth of ours. And, they have almost no unem­ployment,
or any of its related social problems. Yet,
the Clinton administration wants to shut them
down. Clinton says they must raise taxes, or they
will lose the pittance they get from the federal gov­ernment.
The governor of Norther Marianas says,
“OK., take your money back.” They don’t need it.
Please look into that before you attack tax cuts
and government program growth cuts.
Study after study
proves that good family
background make people
more likely to be
emotionally financially,
and spiritually happier for life
On a-somew-hat related ppmt, I have one request
of Ms. Leddy: Prove that the Republicans, as a
whole, have proposed cutting even a single penny
from Medicare, Medicaid, or A.F.D.C. You cannot
do that at all. I have no idea where one might get
the idea that they are cutting the above programs,
but it is false. Republicans simply believe that it
is smart to keep the budget growth within the pa­rameters
of inflation and economic growth. The
so-called “cuts” you speak of are simply them say­ing
“We will no longer allow this program to grow
at 10% every year when income in this country
only grows by 5%” (for example). That is what the
liberal media refers to as a ‘cut.’ Like I said, prove
otherwise. And, by the way, I agree that we need
defense cutbacks. We won the cold war. We have
so much more than any other country. (We have
sixteen carriers..the closest nation, Russia, has a
small fraction of that.) But, some of the old-time
Republicans still can’t believe it is over. Luckily,
there are freshmen who know this and are trying
to perform cuts. Hopefully they will win out. On
the other hand, defense spending has gone from
about 11% of our GDP in 1955 to about 4% now,
while other domestic spending has gone from 5.5%
to 14.5% (source: 1995 fiscal year budget of the
U.S.)
Bosnia? Bloated Pork Barrel Bill? Peace Confer­ence?
What is this nonsense? The Clintonites had
no business sending our young men and women
somewhere in which, yet again, they were placed
in the line of fire to protect people who did not
want it. All the while, they are hobbled so they
cannot even defend themselves. Remember the
“peace-keepers” being pushed back and back and
back? They really did some good, didn’t they? In
the end, level-headed diplomacy seems to be work­ing
since it looks as of the time of this writing tha t
temporary peace may occur. But, in the mean time,
we could have simply allowed the Muslims to de­fend
themselves. They had an embargo which Con­gress
voted to repeal.
About Medicare. In case you didn’t notice, it was
Democrats who, long ago, recognized th a t some­thing
needed fixing in the Medicare system if it was
to not engulf the entire federal budget. Only they
did not have the political courage to do it. If we
leave it like it is now, no senior will benefit because
the program will have to stop long before it reaches
its projection of gobbling up the entire federal bud­get.
And that is when real cuts would happen. Also,
the Republican proposals afford choice and even
savings, in the form of M.S. A.’s which allow seniors
to collect a portion of their un-used benefits at the
end of each year.
I also propose, like Ms. Leddy, th a t “tax and cut”
is not the answer. I propose the same as the Re­publicans
propose: cut taxes and cut government.
We currently spend twice each year, on our “war on
poverty,” w hat it would cost to pull everyone out of
poverty here. We could simply write them a check.
Or, we could send it to the churches who actually
get people off of the need for welfare. Look for
a proposal th a t would allow a tax credit (not
deduction...CREDIT) for donations to charities
th a t work against poverty. They work better
than the federal government, dollar per dollar
because they address the real problems and be­cause
many of their workers are volunteers.
This is what we need, not more heartless gov­ernment
programs meant to ensure th a t cer­tain
members of our society remain “enslaved”
to the welfare state.
I fully agree with Ms. Leddy’s last h alf of her
— last paragraph: Congressional perks are out­rageous
and it should never have become a ca­reer
to be on Capitol Hill. I believe th a t term limits
and campaign contribution reform will help a lot
towards making sure th a t our Congress represents
us. (Also, by the way, the Republicans have said
they are willing to take the first cut, the only real
cut, but Clinton decided to blast them for “taking
care of their business first.” I think, when “cuts”
are on the table, they had better take care of them­selves
first.)
Andrew Barber
T he L a 5t
I appreciate the time you took to respond to my
Commentary, Mr. Barber, however, I do not believe
tha t all of your points are accurate, 1. My infor­mation
on the cuts to Medicare, A.F.D.C., and Med­icaid
programs came from four sources: the first
was a detailed outline of the Contract with America
in Newsweek which came out last semester; the
second was an article outlining the Contract with
America in last week’s Baltimore Sun; the third
was a C-Span speech during which Newtie and
Dole spoke of their Welfare prposals which aired
last August; the fourth was a recent U.S. News and
World Report showing a detailed pie chart of the
proposed cuts. U.S. News also provided me with
my corporate tax write-off information. The ar­ticle
is on the cover and I do believe it is accurate.
inaccuracy I would like to sight is the
section during which you claimed I advocated the
pseudo-reforms that Congress has passed concern­ing
welfare. Fine they may be reforming but their
reforms move in the wrong direction which creates
the dependancy on the state with you abhore.
That's nice tha t you agree with me on some
points but, you have failed to see the ramifications
on the justice in law by the pushing of personal
morals in legislation as select Republicans have
been doing with "family values," I see through
reading your letter that you support these values
lyourself, That’s great but, just like religion, they
Tdon't belong in politics. B e t h a n y L e d d y